Class 11 Political Science Chapter 10 The Philosophy of the Constitution NCERT Solutions

Q. The following are certain laws. Are they connected with any value? If yes, then what is the underlying value? Give reasons.
(a) Both daughters and sons will have share in the family property.
(b) There will be different slabs of sales tax on different consumer items.
(c) Religious instructions will not be given in any government school.
(d) There shall be no begar or forced labour.

Answer:
(a) This law is connected with the value of gender equality, it ensures that sons and daughters get an equal share of family property, without discrimination based on sex.
(b) This law is not directly connected to a moral value, it is mainly an administrative/economic policy matter, though it can indirectly connect to social justice (e.g. lower tax on essential goods, higher on luxury items).
(c) This law is connected with the value of secularism, it ensures government educational institutions do not favour any one religion, so students of all faiths are treated equally.
(d) This law is connected with the value of human dignity and individual freedom, it ensures no one can be forced to work against their will.

Q. Which of the options given below cannot be used to complete the following statement? Democratic countries need a constitution to:
i. Check the power of the government.
ii. Protect minorities from majority.
iii. Bring independence from colonial rule.
iv. Ensure that a long-term vision is not lost by momentary passions.
v. Bring social change in a peaceful manner.

Answer: Option (iii) cannot be used. A constitution is not needed to “bring” independence from colonial rule, independence is achieved through struggle and political processes, the constitution is the instrument that gives institutional form to that independence AFTER it is achieved. Options (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) all correctly state real reasons for needing a constitution: checking government power, protecting minorities, safeguarding long-term vision, and enabling peaceful social change.

Q. The following are different positions about reading and understanding Constituent Assembly debates.
i. Which of these statements argues that Constituent Assembly debates are relevant even today? Which statement says that they are not relevant?
ii. With which of these positions do you agree and why?
(a) Common people are too busy in earning livelihood and meeting different pressures of life. They can’t understand the legal language of these debates.
(b) The conditions and challenges today are different from the time when the Constitution was made. To read the ideas of Constitution makers and use them for our new times is trying to bring past in the present.
(c) Our ways of understanding the world and the present challenges have not changed totally. Constituent Assembly debates can provide us reasons why certain practices are important. In a period when constitutional practices are being challenged, not knowing the reasons can destroy them.

Answer:
(i) Statement (c) argues the debates ARE relevant today. Statement (b) argues they are NOT relevant (statement (a) does not directly address relevance, it only says the legal language is difficult for common people, which is a separate issue).
(ii) I agree with statement (c), because as the chapter explains, in India (unlike in America), the conditions of the framers’ time and our present time have not changed so drastically. In terms of our values, ideals and concepts, we have not separated ourselves from the world of the Constituent Assembly, so understanding these debates helps us understand our present-day challenges too. Statement (c) also carries the chapter’s second reason: we may have forgotten the real point behind several of our legal and political practices because we began to take them for granted. When the going is good, this forgetting is harmless, but when these practices are challenged or threatened, neglect of the underlying principles can be harmful, so we must keep going back to the Constituent Assembly debates to grasp their value and meaning.

Q. Explain the difference between the Indian Constitution and western ideas in the light of:
(a) Understanding of secularism (b) Articles 370 and 371 (c) Affirmative action (d) Universal adult franchise

Answer:
(a) Secularism: the western conception means mutual exclusion, that is, religion and state stay completely away from each other’s affairs. The Indian conception means principled distance, that is, the state can intervene in religious matters when needed (such as to remove untouchability) or stay away, depending on the situation.
(b) Articles 370 and 371: western federalism (like in the US) is constitutionally symmetrical: all units have the same legal status. Indian federalism is constitutionally asymmetric. Article 370 gave Jammu and Kashmir special status until it became inoperative in 2019; under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the State was reorganised into Union Territories from 31 October 2019. Article 371 and related provisions such as Article 371A (Nagaland) still give special status to several States, especially in the North-East, so Indian federalism remains asymmetric.
(c) Affirmative action: in the West (e.g. the US), this began after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In India, it was built into the Constitution from the start, through SC/ST reservation, almost two decades earlier.
(d) Universal adult franchise: many stable Western democracies extended voting rights to women and the working class only quite late. India granted the vote to everyone without discrimination right from the start, when the Constitution was framed.

Q. Which of the following principles of secularism are adopted in the Constitution of India?
(a) that state will have nothing to do with religion.
(b) that state will have close relation with religion.
(c) that state can discriminate among religions.
(d) that state will recognise rights of religious groups.
(e) that state will have limited powers to intervene in affairs of religions.

Answer: (d) and (e) are the principles adopted in India. (d) is correct, the Indian Constitution grants religious communities rights such as running their own educational institutions. (e) is correct, the state has limited but real power to intervene in religious matters, such as to remove practices like untouchability. (a) is incorrect, India does not adopt a “nothing to do with religion” stance. (b) is incorrect, the state does not maintain a “close relation” with any one religion, that would violate secularism. (c) is incorrect, the state cannot discriminate between religions.

Q. Match the following.
(a) Freedom to criticise treatment of widows.
(b) Taking decisions in the constituent assembly on the basis of reason, not self interest.
(c) Accepting importance of community in an individual’s life.
(d) Article 370 and 371.
(e) Unequal rights to women regarding family property and children.
Options: (i) Substantive achievement (ii) Procedural achievement (iii) Neglect of gender justice (iv) Liberal individualism (v) Attention to requirements of a particular region

Answer:
(a) → (iv) Liberal individualism. The freedom to openly criticise a practice (here, the treatment of widows) is an example of individual freedom (liberal individualism).
(b) → (ii) Procedural achievement. Deciding on the basis of reason rather than self-interest is the procedural achievement of faith in political deliberation.
(c) → (i) Substantive achievement. Accepting the importance of community in an individual’s life is group rights (the right to the expression of cultural particularity), the third of the three core features the chapter names first, and one of the five substantive achievements in all.
(d) → (v) Attention to requirements of a particular region. Article 371 (with provisions like Article 371A for Nagaland) gives special treatment to particular regions, especially in the North-East, through asymmetric federalism. Article 370 did the same for Jammu and Kashmir until it became inoperative in 2019.
(e) → (iii) Neglect of gender justice. Unequal rights for women and children in family property reflects the Constitution’s limitation regarding gender justice.

Q. This discussion was taking place in a class. Read the various arguments and state which of these do you agree with and why.
Jayesh: I still think that our Constitution is only a borrowed document.
Saba: Do you mean to say that there is nothing Indian in it? But is there such a thing as Indian and western in the case of values and ideas? Take equality between men and women. What is western about it? And even if it is, should we reject it only because it is western?
Jayesh: What I mean is that after fighting for independence from the British, did we not adopt their system of parliamentary government?
Neha: You forget that when we fought the British, we were not against the British as such, we were against the principle of colonialism. That has nothing to do with adopting a system of government that we wanted, wherever it came from.

Answer: I agree with Saba and Neha’s arguments. Saba is right that labelling a value or idea as purely “Indian” or “western” is itself mistaken, good ideas (such as equality between men and women) cannot be rejected merely because they originated elsewhere. Neha is also right that the freedom struggle was against colonialism (rule by an external, foreign power), not against any particular system of governance, so adopting a parliamentary system was a deliberate, reasoned choice, not a sign of “borrowing” or servitude. Jayesh’s argument is weaker because it focuses only on the “origin” of an idea, not its usefulness or reasonableness.

Q. Why is it said that the making of the Indian Constitution was unrepresentative? Does that make the Constitution unrepresentative? Give reasons for your answer.

Answer:
It is said to be unrepresentative because the Constituent Assembly was formed at a time when universal adult franchise had not yet been granted, and most of its members came from the advanced sections of society, that is, by the “voice” component of representation, it was indeed unrepresentative. But this does not make the Constitution entirely unrepresentative, because there is a second component of representation, “opinion”. Reading the Constituent Assembly debates shows that a very wide range of issues and views were raised, members brought up not just their personal concerns but the concerns and interests of various social sections. This is why Dr. Ambedkar’s statue with a copy of the Constitution is found in almost every small town’s central square, not as a mere symbolic tribute, but as an expression of the feeling among Dalits that the Constitution reflects many of their aspirations. So while the Constitution was unrepresentative in terms of “voice”, it was considerably representative in terms of “opinion”.

Q. One of the limitations of the Constitution of India is that it does not adequately attend to gender justice. What evidence can you give to substantiate this charge? If you were writing the Constitution today, what provisions would you recommend for remedying this limitation?

Answer:
Evidence: the Constitution does not clearly address inequalities within the family, such as unequal rights of women and children regarding family property, gender bias in personal laws governing marriage and inheritance, and issues like domestic violence. Many of these matters were left to personal laws, which often continue to carry gender inequality.
Recommendations: if writing the Constitution today, one could recommend a uniform provision guaranteeing men and women equal rights to family property and inheritance, making protection from domestic violence part of the Fundamental Rights, and a constitutional directive ensuring gender equality within the personal laws of all religions.

Q. Do you agree with the statement that “it is not clear why in a poor developing country, certain basic socio-economic rights were relegated to the section on Directive Principles rather than made an integral feature of our Fundamental Rights”? Give reasons for your answer. What do you think are the possible reasons for putting socio-economic rights in the section on Directive Principles?

Answer:
I partly agree, this is indeed a valid question. Possible reasons include: (1) India’s economy was very weak at the time, making it practically impossible to immediately guarantee and enforce all socio-economic rights (such as guaranteed employment, education, health) as Fundamental Rights. (2) Fundamental Rights are enforceable in court, if these rights had been made fundamental and the state failed to deliver them immediately, courts would repeatedly have had to declare the government in violation, which would have damaged the Constitution’s credibility. (3) By placing them as Directive Principles, they were kept as long-term goals, to be fulfilled gradually as resources allowed. Even so, this reasoning is not fully satisfactory, since some rights (like education) were later made Fundamental Rights (through the 86th Amendment), showing it was not impossible after all.

Q. How did your school celebrate the Constitution Day on November 26th?

Answer: This is a personal, school-based experience question, each student should answer based on activities held at their own school (such as a collective reading of the Preamble, speech competitions on the Constitution, essay writing, debates, or an exhibition on the makers of the Constitution).

Q. Does it mean that all constitutions have a philosophy? Or is it that only some constitutions have a philosophy?

Answer: Every constitution rests on some moral vision, because laws are connected to values: a law against discrimination exists because we value equality. Constitutions differ in how openly they state it. Some, like the Japanese Constitution of 1947, state their philosophy plainly: its preamble and Article 9 base it on the ideal of peace, so it is popularly known as the “peace constitution”. In other constitutions the philosophy has to be worked out from the key concepts and, as in India, from the debates of the body that framed it.

Q. So, can we say that members of the Constituent Assembly were all eager to bring social transformation? But we also keep saying that all view points were represented in the Assembly!

Answer: Both statements can be true together. The Assembly as a whole, in Nehru’s words a “nation on the move”, designed the Constitution to break the shackles of traditional social hierarchies and usher in a new era of freedom, equality and justice. But its members did not all agree on how far or how fast change should go; different views were argued out in the debates, and the final text reflects a spirit of compromise and accommodation. Commitment to transformation was the broad direction; the range of opinions shaped the details.

Q. Read again the quotes from the Debates of the Constituent Assembly (CAD) given in the following chapters. Do you think that the arguments in those quotations have relevance for our present times? Why? (i) Quotes in Chapter two (ii) Quote in Chapter seven

Answer: (i) Chapter two (Rights): Somnath Lahiri criticised draft fundamental rights that were almost invariably followed by a proviso which takes away the right almost completely, and asked that every right “our people want to get” be included; Sardar Hukam Singh asked the majority to place themselves in the position of the minorities and appreciate their fears about language, script and services. Both are still relevant: debates on how far “reasonable restrictions” may limit rights, and on protecting minorities’ language and opportunities, continue today. (ii) Chapter seven (Federalism): T.T. Krishnamachari observed that the trend of constitutions had been towards the centre, because States had become welfare states and the ultimate responsibility for the economic well-being of the country had become the paramount responsibility of the centre. This is relevant to present debates on Centre-State relations, the sharing of resources and taxes, and the demand for more autonomy for the States.

Q. This is tough. Why couldn’t they plainly tell us what the philosophy of this Constitution is? How can ordinary citizens understand the philosophy if it is hidden like this?

Answer: It is hard to describe in one word because it resists any single label: it is liberal, democratic, egalitarian, secular and federal, open to community values, sensitive to the needs of religious and linguistic minorities and historically disadvantaged groups, and committed to a common national identity. But it is not hidden: many people find the best summary of it in the Preamble, and in short it is committed to freedom, equality, social justice and some form of national unity, to be put into practice by peaceful and democratic means.

Q. Read the cartoon by Shankar (26 January 1950): “While all ideas unfold on this playfield, democracy is the ‘Umpire’.” What does it say about the philosophy of the Constitution?

Answer: The cartoon, dated 26 January 1950, the day the Constitution came into force, presents the new republic as a playfield on which all ideas and ideologies unfold and compete. No single idea is allowed to win by force; democracy acts as the umpire that applies the rules and settles disputes. This matches the chapter’s point that the philosophy of the Constitution includes many values at once, and that underneath them all there is a clear emphasis on peaceful and democratic measures for putting this philosophy into practice.

Q. State which of the following rights are part of individual freedom: Freedom of expression; Freedom of religion; Cultural and educational rights of minorities; Equal access to public places.

Answer:
Freedom of expression: yes, part of individual freedom.
Freedom of religion: yes, part of individual freedom (freedom of conscience).
Cultural and educational rights of minorities: no, this is a community or group right, the right of religious and linguistic communities to establish and run their own educational institutions.
Equal access to public places: no, this belongs to the right to equality and social justice, ending discrimination such as untouchability, rather than to individual freedom.

Q. Have they started teaching us the Political Theory course?

Answer: Not yet, but the two books are connected. This chapter briefly uses ideas such as liberalism and secularism, and says that you will learn more about them in the book on Political Theory, which explains concepts like freedom, equality, rights and secularism in detail.

Q. I would like to know whether finally, the state can regulate matters related to religion or not. Otherwise, there can be no religious reform.

Answer: Yes, it can, within limits. Indian secularism does not mean mutual exclusion of state and religion but principled distance: the state keeps a distance from all religions so that it can intervene or abstain from interference, depending on which would better promote liberty, equality and social justice. Because religiously sanctioned customs such as untouchability were so deeply rooted that they could not end without active state intervention, the state had to interfere in the affairs of religion; it can also help religious communities, for example by giving aid to their educational institutions. This is what makes religious reform possible under the Constitution.

Q. It’s certainly a matter of pride that the principle of ‘one man one vote’ was accepted almost uncontested. Isn’t it true that women had to struggle for their right to vote in many other countries?

Answer: Yes. The chapter notes that when India adopted universal franchise, the right to vote had only recently been extended to women and to the working class in stable Western democracies, after long struggles. In India the idea lay at the heart of nationalism: the Constitution of India Bill (1895) and the Motilal Nehru Report (1928), which gave every person of either sex who had attained twenty-one the right to vote, show that universal franchise was always seen as the legitimate way to express the will of the nation.

Q. I understand compromises in the design of institutions, but how can conflicting principles be accommodated?

Answer: By trading off one value partially for another, not by giving up a value for mere self-interest. The chapter says that if one value is partially traded off for another, especially in an open process of free deliberation among equals, the compromise can hardly be objected to; to secure a bit of all things important is not morally blameworthy. Examples: individual liberty is balanced with social justice through reservations; equality between individuals is balanced with rights of religious communities; a strong centre is balanced with special provisions for some States.

Q. Of course! Isn’t it what we learnt in the first chapter? That there should be a valid reason for every section of society to go along with the Constitution?

Answer: Yes. A constitution works only if every section of society has a reason to accept it. That is why the chapter, discussing the charge that the Constitution is unrepresentative, points out that a vast range of opinions and the concerns of various social sections were raised in the Constituent Assembly, and that statues of Dr. Ambedkar with a copy of the Constitution in small towns express the feeling among Dalits that the Constitution reflects many of their aspirations.

Q. No document can be perfect and no ideals can be fully achieved. But does that mean we should have no ideals? No vision? Am I right?

Answer: Yes. The Constitution has limitations: a centralised idea of national unity, gaps in gender justice within the family, and basic socio-economic rights placed among the Directive Principles. But the chapter argues that these are not serious enough to jeopardise its philosophy. Ideals and a shared vision give direction even when they are not fully achieved: in spite of all our conflicts, people still share the vision of living together and prospering together on the basis of equality, liberty and fraternity, and keeping that vision alive may be our important achievement.